I do agree with you. A score must show the reality of the game not what it was when the review was done.
If reviewer didn't noticed several problems he should take points after release. Or if consistent improvement is made grade should improve.

And people are funny. If dev delay a game they curse, if they need patch they curse... I bet everyone here always meet all deadlines and never makes a mistake, such brilliant folks.

Let's bash devs for rushing or delaying but accept reviewers do 30min reviews just for hits, missing features, problems and etc.

Are you referring to Driveclub? It was playable, it's just the online portion was unavailable for some users, similar issue to Halo MCC.

Yes they should since its only fair. Games like Battlefield 4 also had problems and its review scores weren't adjusted down for the problems.

And online play/leaderboards are a huge aspect of the game, even "offline". Thus, unplayable. Just like MP is a huge aspect of the MMC, thus, unplayable. Neither game worked anywhere close to as intended.

Should games like Titanfall be rescored as well? Content was a bug issue at launch and its night and day different. What about prices? If a game scores a 7.5 at launch for $60, should it be rescored when the MSRP is $20-30? Or do we only make exceptions for developers who push out broken shit?

I'm not disagreeing with you that the online aspect of a game is a big part of it, but saying the game was "unplayable" is a hyperbolic statement. The game was playable.

The only reviewers that should update reviews are the ones that flip-flopped at the launch. Those reviewers should change the score of both Driveclub and MCC when they are fixed.

Everyone else should keep their initial review.

If reviewers updated their reviews after the game's launch, they should be required to change the review score back to the original one.

Please no!

Games like Driveclub and MCC that release broken should not be rewarded for belatedly improving their stability, matchmaking and other promised features.

Get it right on launch.

See, I don't understand that logic for a number of reasons.  First off, it's ridiculously vindictive, like in the making of Driveclub, someone from Evolution Studios punched your cat or like you had your entire lifes savings invested in the company and are now reduced to giving handjobs to cover rent.  Secondly, the damage poor reviews have is focused entirely upon launch and the first couple weeks sales (provided, of course, gamer's actually pay attention to reviews, AC U didn't flop, Halo MCC didn't flop etc...).  Beyond that, word of mouth generally has more impact.  Thirdly, the reviews are then perpetually incorrect.  And what kind of writer is ok with their articles being factually incorrect?  Oh, that's right, it's game's 'journalists' we're talking about here.

In your opinion anyway. To me, a game launching without its main features, in unplayable. Not to mention, if you bought DC or MCC for online play, then they quite literally were unplayable.

Its not an exaggeration. Or hyperbole. The game was broken. It was unplayable. I want to buy it, but i have friends who still have issues.